DOCSLIB.ORG

Understanding the Concept of Adoption: a Qualitative Analysis with Adoptees and Their Parents Diana L

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Understanding the Concept of Adoption: a Qualitative Analysis with Adoptees and Their Parents Diana L Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 2008 Understanding the concept of adoption: a qualitative analysis with adoptees and their parents Diana L. Baltimore Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the Family, Life Course, and Society Commons, Social Psychology Commons, Social Psychology and Interaction Commons, and the Social Welfare Commons Recommended Citation Baltimore, Diana L., "Understanding the concept of adoption: a qualitative analysis with adoptees and their parents" (2008). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 15288. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/15288 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Understanding the concept of adoption: A qualitative analysis with adoptees and their parents by Diana L. Baltimore A thesis submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Major: Human Development and Family Studies Program of Study Committee: Sedahlia Jasper Crase, Major Professor Ron Werner-Wilson Mack C. Shelley, II Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 2008 Copyright © Diana L. Baltimore, 2008. All rights reserved. UMI Number: 1453104 UMI Microform 1453104 Copyright 2008 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS v ABSTRACT vi CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 3 Adoption as a Stigma? 4 Adoptive Identity-Self identity, Self-esteem, Stigma, and Adoption 9 Understanding Adoption as a Concept 11 Adoption Language 14 Purpose of the Study 16 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 17 Phenomenological Approach 17 Data Collection 17 Participants 19 Family and Adoption Profiles 20 Ethical Considerations 21 Data Analysis 22 Researcher as Instrument 23 Indicators of Rigor 25 CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 28 Themes 28 Theme 1: Parents’ Overall Experiences and Beliefs as a Result of Being a Parent of Adopted Children 29 Positive Experiences 30 Faith-based Responses 33 More Grateful, Eager, and Committed to Parent than Some Other Parents 35 No Difference / Matter-of-Factness 39 Lack of Medical Information 42 Theme 2: Need for Education/Change/Positive Media Portrayals of Adoption 43 Societal Beliefs – Changing Definition of Family 43 Increase Media Portrayals of Positive Adoption Stories 47 Promote Positive Adoption Language/Word Choices 50 Dispel Societal Misperceptions About Adoption 56 Process Questions 59 Increase Number of People Who Experience Adoption 60 Change Overall Child Welfare System – Biological Ties Need Not Prevail 62 Theme 3: Communication 70 iii Early Telling 70 Open and Honest Communications 72 Adoption Day Celebrations 74 Child-Directed Answers to Questions 76 Consideration of Children’s Cognitive Abilities When Disseminating Adoption-Related Information 77 Older Females More Curious Than Parents Realized 78 Theme 4: Children’s Understanding 82 Children Know What Their Parents Tell Them 83 Too Young, Could Not Care For Them; Parents Accurately Assess What Their Children Know 86 Older Children Gain Knowledge and Understanding Through Social Construction 90 No Difference Between Families Who Adopt and Those Who Have Biologically-Related Children 92 Theme 5: Identity 94 Children are Curious 94 Stability, Permanency, and “Normalcy” While Preserving Origin 97 Adoptive Identity 99 CHAPTER 5. LIMITATIONS, POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS, FUTURE RESEARCH, CONCLUSIONS 105 Limitations 105 Policy Implications and Other Implications 105 Future Research 107 Conclusions 109 APPENDIX A. Parents’ Consent for Minors’ Interview Questions 111 APPENDIX B. Questions for Minor Participants 112 APPENDIX C. Demographic Forms 114 Minor Demographic Questionnaire 114 Adult Demographic Questionnaire 116 APPENDIX D. IRB Form 118 APPENDIX E. Consent and Assent Forms 119 Consent for Minor Children to Participate in Research 119 Children’s Assent Form 122 Adult Consent to Participate in Research 123 Adults’ Grand Tour Questions 126 iv APPENDIX F. Emergent Questions 128 REFERENCES 129 v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am so incredibly blessed to have such wonderful children and supportive family members. To my husband, Chip, thank you for your patience, understanding, and support which has helped me further my education. I truly appreciate your extra help around the house, with my schoolwork, and with our children. To my outstanding children, Blake and Danielle, thank you for letting me work, go to school, study, and still be a mom! I am the luckiest mom in the whole wide world! Most importantly, I appreciate everyone’s love, support, and prayers. To my parents, Duane and Helen, thank you for teaching me the value of hard work, education, and perseverance. I would not be able to accomplish my goals without these values. To my brother Troy, thank you for your support. To my biological family, thank you for giving me the material to work with for my thesis. Grandma, thanks for your “uncanny” encouragement and role-modeling of a very strong, well-read, well-educated woman. You were a “woman before your time.” Sedahlia Jasper Crase, thank you so much for your guidance, wisdom, keen eye for detail, and modeling of professionalism! I have learned so much from you. Thank you for taking me on as an additional student when your workload was already incomprehensible! To my committee members, Mack Shelley and Ron Werner-Wilson, thank you for your insights and comments. Mack, your eye for detail and modesty are great examples for me! Ron, thanks for advising from “afar.” I appreciate your willingness to remain on my committee. vi Lastly, thank you to all the wonderful families who shared their hearts, homes, and experiences with me so I could learn more about adoption! I look forward to working with you so we can make a difference! vii ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of children’s and adults’ experiences with adoption. This qualitative study used individual interviews to examine 25 participants—8 adoptive mothers and fathers, and their 5- to 14-year-old sons ( n=5) and daughters ( n=4) adopted before 18 months. Data were collected using a phenomenological methodology and analysis of the data was guided by the following research questions: (a) What are children’s and parents’ 1 overall experiences with adoption? (b) What is the social construction of adoption? (c) What do children understand about the concept of adoption and how do they construct that understanding? (d) How do language and word choices influence the concept of adoption? (e) What would you like others to know about adoption? Analysis followed steps defined by Moustakas and others and revealed five interactive themes that resonated among all families (a) parents’ beliefs/experiences, (b) the need for education and change to promote adoption and positive adoption terminology, (c) communication, (d) children’s understanding, (e) and identity. Limitations, future research possibilities, policy implications and implications for those who counsel, teach, and work with parents and children who have experienced adoption were identified. 1 The term “parent (s)” used throughout this paper, unless otherwise noted, refers to the parent (s) who adopted a child. The terms “birth parent (s)” or “biological parent (s)” refer to the parent (s) to whom a child was biologically born. 1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction Adoption of children into a family occurs in all societies around the world. However, there has never been one, comprehensive national data collection bank to monitor, assess, and track all adoption activity in the United States and its territories (Javier, Baden, Biafora, & Gingerich-Camacho, 2007). Thus, the following statistics are comprised of a combination of data sources and in many cases are estimates. In the United States, 1.7 million households have at least one adopted child, which translates to 1.6 million adopted children under the age of 18 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). According to the National Council for Adoption (NCFA, 2002), the total number of adoptions increased from 119,766 in 1996 to 151,332 in 2002. The largest group of children adopted each year comes from the foster care system, with approximately 51,000 adopted from foster care in fiscal year 2005 (www.acf.hhs.gov/programs ), over 20,000 children adopted from other countries in fiscal year 2006 (U.S. Department of State, n.d.), and approximately 13,000 children adopted domestically each year (Hamilton, Ventura, Martin, & Sutton, 2004). However, despite the different sources and circumstances from which children are adopted, one similarity exists for many adoptees: they feel different from other children they know “Adoption in the Schools Report,” 2006). Thus, this section contains a review of the research literature concerning (a) adoption as a stigma (b) the possible effects of stigma on an adoptee’s self- identity and self-esteem; and (c) the language used in association with the concept of adoption. The information from
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Caregiver's Guide to Child Care and Early Childhood Education
    The Grandparent’s and Other Relative Caregiver’s Guide to Child Care and Early Childhood Education Programs WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW TO GIVE THE CHILD YOU ARE RAISING A HEAD START Join the Movement to Leave No Child Behind®! aking sure that all children have access to quality child care and early childhood education experi- M ences is an important first step in giving them a head start in life and the tools they need to grow into healthy and productive adults. Understandably, early childhood education experiences are not enough. Children also need quality health care, a good education, safe places to live and play, and income supports to help their families stay out of poverty. Some children may also need help to take care of their special needs. The mission of the Children’s Defense Fund (CDF) is to Leave No Child Behind® and to ensure every child a Healthy Start, a Head Start, a Fair Start, a Safe Start, and a Moral Start in life and successful passage to adulthood with the help of caring families and communities. Over the months and years ahead, CDF will be calling upon committed parents, grandparents, and other relative caregivers like you to help make this vision a reality for all American children. To get involved with other con- cerned individuals, children’s advocacy organizations, and community and faith-based groups in the national Movement to Leave No Child Behind®, contact the Children’s Defense Fund, 25 E Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001 or check CDF’s Web site at www.childrensdefense.org CDF encourages you to copy and share this brochure with others.
    [Show full text]
  • Placement of Children with Relatives
    STATE STATUTES Current Through January 2018 WHAT’S INSIDE Placement of Children With Giving preference to relatives for out-of-home Relatives placements When a child is removed from the home and placed Approving relative in out-of-home care, relatives are the preferred placements resource because this placement type maintains the child’s connections with his or her family. In fact, in Placement of siblings order for states to receive federal payments for foster care and adoption assistance, federal law under title Adoption by relatives IV-E of the Social Security Act requires that they Summaries of state laws “consider giving preference to an adult relative over a nonrelated caregiver when determining a placement for a child, provided that the relative caregiver meets all relevant state child protection standards.”1 Title To find statute information for a IV-E further requires all states2 operating a title particular state, IV-E program to exercise due diligence to identify go to and provide notice to all grandparents, all parents of a sibling of the child, where such parent has legal https://www.childwelfare. gov/topics/systemwide/ custody of the sibling, and other adult relatives of the laws-policies/state/. child (including any other adult relatives suggested by the parents) that (1) the child has been or is being removed from the custody of his or her parents, (2) the options the relative has to participate in the care and placement of the child, and (3) the requirements to become a foster parent to the child.3 1 42 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Allomaternal Investments and Child Outcomes in the United Kingdom
    Allomaternal Investments and Child Outcomes in the United Kingdom Emily Hazuki Emmott Doctor of Philosophy Department of Anthropology University College London 2014 p. 1 Declaration I, Emily Hazuki Emmott, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. Emily H. Emmott p. 2 Abstract Due to the fact that human mothers often have multiple, vulnerable offspring with long periods of dependency, it is argued that mothers need assistance from allomothers to successfully provide and care for their children. Cross-cultural observations and quantitative research converge on support for the idea that mothers in high fertility, high mortality populations need assistance from other individuals for successful childrearing. It is also clear within the literature that there is variation across populations in terms of who matters: who provides the help, how they help, and how much impact they have on childrearing. The current thesis extends from previous studies by exploring the effects of allomothers on childrearing in a contemporary developed context: With economic development and the demographic transition, questions arise regarding the importance of allomothers for successful childrearing, and whether humans in these settings still operate as cooperative breeders. This thesis specifically focuses on quantitatively investigating the effects of fathers, stepfathers and grandparents on child development in the UK. First, using the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, I investigate how direct investments from fathers and stepfathers affect multiple child outcomes. Second, using the UK Millennium Cohort Study, I investigate how direct and indirect investments from maternal and paternal grandparents affect parental investment levels, as well as multiple child outcomes.
    [Show full text]
  • Background Information Disclosure (Bid) Instructions
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES STATE OF WISCONSIN F-82064A (02/2013) Chapters 48.685 and 50.065, Wis. Stats. DHS 12.05(4), Wis. Admin. Code BACKGROUND INFORMATION DISCLOSURE (BID) INSTRUCTIONS The Background Information Disclosure form (F-82064) gathers information as required by the Wisconsin Caregiver Background Check Law to help employers and governmental regulatory agencies make employment, contract, residency, and regulatory decisions. Complete and return the entire form and attach explanations as specified by employer or governmental regulatory agency. NOTE: If you are an owner, operator, board member, or non client resident of a Division of Quality Assurance (DQA) facility, complete the BID, F-82064, and the Appendix, F-82069, and submit both forms to the address noted in the Appendix Instructions. CAREGIVER BACKGROUND CHECK LAW In accordance with the provisions of Chapters 48.685 and 50.065, Wis. Stats., for persons who have been convicted of certain acts, crimes, or offenses: 1. The Department of Health Services (DHS) may not license, certify, or register the person or entity (Note: Employers and Care Providers are referred to as “entities”); 2. A county agency may not certify a child care or license a foster or treatment foster home; 3. A child placing agency may not license a foster or treatment foster home or contract with an adoptive parent applicant for a child adoption; 4. A school board may not contract with a licensed child care provider; and 5. An entity may not employ, contract with or, permit persons to reside at the entity. The list of offenses affecting caregiver eligibility that require rehabilitation review is available from the regulatory agencies or through the Internet at http://DHS.wisconsin.gov/caregiver/StatutesINDEX.HTM.
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Acts of Assembly -- 2020 Session
    VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2020 SESSION CHAPTER 366 An Act to amend and reenact §§ 16.1-282.1, 63.2-100, 63.2-900.1, 63.2-906, and 63.2-1305 of the Code of Virginia, relating to Kinship Guardianship Assistance program; eligibility; fictive kin. [H 933] Approved March 18, 2020 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia: 1. That §§ 16.1-282.1. 63.2-100, 63.2-900.1, 63.2-906, and 63.2-1305 of the Code of Virginia are amended and reenacted as follows: § 16.1-282.1. Permanency planning hearing for children in foster care. A. In the case of a child who was the subject of a foster care plan filed with the court pursuant to § 16.1-281, a permanency planning hearing shall be held within 10 months of the dispositional hearing at which the foster care plan pursuant to § 16.1-281 was reviewed if the child (a) was placed through an agreement between the parents or guardians and the local board of social services where legal custody remains with the parents or guardians and such agreement has not been dissolved by court order; or (b) is under the legal custody of a local board of social services or a child welfare agency and has not had a petition to terminate parental rights filed on the child©s behalf, has not been placed in permanent foster care, or is age 16 or over and the plan for the child is not independent living. The board or child welfare agency shall file a petition for a permanency planning hearing 30 days prior to the date of the permanency planning hearing scheduled by the court.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Open, Operate, and Expand a Family Day Care Home Table of Contents
    ARLINGTON COUNTY GUIDELINES FOR How to Open, Operate, and Expand a Family Day Care Home Table of Contents Ch. 1 Introduction ..............................................................3 Types of Child Care Programs......................3 How to Use the Guide.....................................4 Government Regulations..............................5 Ch. 2 Opening a Family Day Care Home.....................6 Ch. 3 Operating a Family Day Care Home................15 Ch. 4 Expanding a Family Day Care Home ..............18 Additional Resources Government Agency Contact Information ..............22 Abbreviations to help you along the way: Is Family Day Care the Right Career for You?............23 AED Arlington Economic Development - BizLaunch CO Certificate of Occupancy Tips and Best Practices.....................................................24 CPHD Department of Community Planning, Payments to Arlington County Housing, and Development AED BizLaunch Program DES Department of Environmental Services Community Engagement DHS Department of Human Services Family Day Care Home Self-Assessment Guide DPR Department of Parks and Recreation FEIN/EIN Federal Employer Identification Number ISD Inspection Services Division VDSS Virginia Department of Social Services 2 CHAPTER 1: Introduction Are you interested in operating a family day care home in Arlington County? If so, this how-to guide is for you! Arlington County is committed to the development and strengthening of early learning programs for young children, and we thank you for your interest in providing quality child care for children in Arlington. The information and sample documents included in this guide will serve to support you in becoming a licensed family day care home provider. The guide will outline what you need to do to open, operate, expand, and close a family day care home. While anyone is welcome to use this guide, it will be especially helpful for existing and prospective providers.
    [Show full text]
  • The One-Child Policy and Household Savings∗
    The One-Child Policy and Household Savings∗ Taha Choukhmane Nicolas Coeurdacier Keyu Jin Yale SciencesPo and CEPR London School of Economics This Version: September 18, 2014 Abstract We investigate how the `one-child policy' has impacted China's household saving rate and human capital in the last three decades. In a life-cycle model with endogenous fertility, intergenerational transfers and human capital accumulation, we show how fertility restrictions provide incentives for households to increase their offspring’s education and to accumulate financial wealth in expectation of lower support from their children. Our quantitative OLG model calibrated to household level data shows that the policy significantly increased the human capital of the only child generation and can account for a third to 60% of the rise in aggregate savings. Equally important, it can capture much of the distinct shift in the level and shape of the age-saving profile observed from micro-level data estimates. Using the birth of twins (born under the one child policy) as an exogenous deviation from the policy, we provide an empirical out-of-sample check to our quantitative results; estimates on savings and education decisions are decidedly close between model and data. Keywords : Life Cycle Savings, Fertility, Human Capital, Intergenerational Transfers. JEL codes: E21, D10, D91 ∗We thank Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, Nancy Qian, Andrew Chesher, Aleh Tsyvinski, and seminar participants at LSE, SciencesPo, HEI Geneva, Cambridge University, SED (Seoul), CREI, Banque de France, Bilkent University, University of Edinburgh, EIEF for helpful comments. Nicolas Coeurdacier thanks the ERC for financial support (ERC Starting Grant INFINHET) and the SciencesPo-LSE Mobility Scheme.
    [Show full text]
  • Parent-Provider Agreement Form This Form Tells Us About the Child Care Arrangement
    Parent’s Name: C4K Family ID: Si quiere recibir este material en español sírvase llamar al 1‐888‐214‐5437. Parent-Provider Agreement Form This form tells us about the child care arrangement. Step 1: This form must be completed by the parent and the child care provider. Parent – Complete Section 1, 3 and 5. Child Care Provider – Complete Section 2, 3 and 4. Step 2: Make sure all sections have been filled in and the information is correct. Answer all Yes or No questions by checking the right box. Once you have filled out and checked this form, make sure the parent and provider sign and date. Incomplete forms may not be accepted and will delay processing. Step 3: The law requires us to report all payments to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for income tax purposes. If you are a new child care provider with Care 4 Kids, you must provide us with your Social Security Number or FEIN and fill out an IRS W‐9 form. If you have already submitted a W‐9 form to us, you do not need to fill out a new form unless the information has changed. Care 4 Kids does not withhold income taxes. Providers are responsible for paying taxes to the IRS and the State of Connecticut. To get forms by mail, call 1‐888‐214‐5437, or download the forms at www.ctcare4kids.com. For information about filing income taxes, call or view information on‐line at http://www.irs.gov. Step 4: Submit the filled out form to: Care 4 Kids, 1344 Silas Deane Highway, Rocky Hill, CT 06067 or fax it to 1‐877‐868‐0871.
    [Show full text]
  • Kin Relationships
    In H. T. Reis & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Encyclopedia of human relationships (pp. 951-954). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kin Relationships Kin relationships are traditionally defined as ties based on blood and marriage. They include lineal generational bonds (children, parents, grandparents, and great- grandparents), collateral bonds (siblings, cousins, nieces and nephews, and aunts and uncles), and ties with in-laws. An often-made distinction is that between primary kin (members of the families of origin and procreation) and secondary kin (other family members). The former are what people generally refer to as “immediate family,” and the latter are generally labeled “extended family.” Marriage, as a principle of kinship, differs from blood in that it can be terminated. Given the potential for marital break-up, blood is recognized as the more important principle of kinship. This entry questions the appropriateness of traditional definitions of kinship for “new” family forms, describes distinctive features of kin relationships, and explores varying perspectives on the functions of kin relationships. Questions About Definition Changes over the last thirty years in patterns of family formation and dissolution have given rise to questions about the definition of kin relationships. Guises of kinship have emerged to which the criteria of blood and marriage do not apply. Assisted reproduction is a first example. Births resulting from infertility treatments such as gestational surrogacy and in vitro fertilization with ovum donation challenge the biogenetic basis for kinship. A similar question arises for adoption, which has a history 2 going back to antiquity. Partnerships formed outside of marriage are a second example. Strictly speaking, the family ties of nonmarried cohabitees do not fall into the category of kin, notwithstanding the greater acceptance over time of consensual unions both formally and informally.
    [Show full text]
  • Amicus Brief in Support of Petitioners
    No. 16-1140 In the Supreme Court of the United States NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FAMILY AND LIFE ADVOCATES, D/B/A NIFLA, ET AL., Petitioners, v. XAVIER BECERRA, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE NATIONAL ASSOCIA- TION OF EVANGELICALS, CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA, THE NATIONAL LEGAL FOUNDA- TION, THE ETHICS & RELIGIOUS LIBERTY COMMISSION OF THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION, AND SAMARITAN’S PURSE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS Steven W. Fitschen Frederick W. Claybrook, Jr. James A. Davids Counsel of Record The National Legal Foundation Claybrook LLC 2224 Virginia Beach Blvd., Ste. 204 1001 Pa. Ave., NW, 8th Floor Virginia Beach, Virginia 23454 Washington, D.C. 20004 (757) 463-6133 (202) 250-3833 [email protected] David A. Bruce, Esq. 205 Vierling Drive Silver Spring, Maryland 20904 - i - TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................... iii INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE ............................. 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................... 3 ARGUMENT ................................................................. 4 I. The Courts of Appeals Have Adopted Conflicting Standards. ........................................ 5 II. Strict Scrutiny Should Apply in Compelled Speech Cases Involving Viewpoint Discrimination, Including Laws That Regulate Abortion Speech. ................................................. 7 III. The California Law Is Viewpoint Discriminatory and Does Not Satisfy Strict Scrutiny. ...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Kinship Care Resource Kit Cash Assistance
    Table of Contents Cash Assistance . 2 Child Care and Early Education . 5 Child Support . 10 Child Welfare and Kinship Foster Care. 13 Children with Physical and Mental Disabilities . 17 Domestic Violence . 22 Education . 24 Food and Nutrition . 26 Health Care . 28 HIV/AIDS . 30 Housing . 34 Incarcerated Parents . 39 Juvenile Justice. 42 Legal Options . 44 National Family Caregiver Support Program . 47 Senior Resources . 49 Substance Abuse . 51 Children’s Defense Fund • Kinship Care Resource Kit Cash Assistance any grandparents and other relative care- their own homes or in the homes of relatives.” As a givers already are living on limited incomes. result, all states have cash assistance programs to help MThe added expense of raising a child may children and their families. Each state has a different make it even more difficult to make ends meet. name for its TANF program, such as Colorado Works Your community or faith-based organization can or Arkansas’ Transitional Employment Assistance help by letting kinship caregivers know that they can (TEA) program. Each state also offers a different apply to their state for cash benefits on behalf of the monthly payment. For a list of the names of the children under their care. While the amount of the TANF programs in each state, log on to www.acf.hhs. monthly benefit varies by state, the extra income gov//programs/ofa/tnfnames.htm, or call 1-800- may be just what the caregiver needs to take the best 333-4636. You can also link directly to your state’s possible care of his or her child.
    [Show full text]
  • Dna by the Entirety
    DNA BY THE ENTIRETY Natalie Ram The law fails to accommodate the inconvenient fact that an individual’s identifiable genetic information is involuntarily and immutably shared with her close genetic relatives. Legal institutions have established that individuals have a cognizable interest in control- ling genetic information that is identifying to them. The Supreme Court recognized in Maryland v. King that the Fourth Amendment is impli- cated when arrestees’ DNA is analyzed, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act protects individuals from genetic discrimination in the employment and health-insurance markets. But genetic infor- mation is not like other forms of private or personal information because it is shared—immutably and involuntarily—in ways that are identifying of both the source and that person’s close genetic relatives. Standard approaches to addressing interests in genetic information have largely failed to recognize this characteristic, treating such infor- mation as individualistic. While many legal frames may be brought to bear on this problem, this Article focuses on the law of property. Specifically, looking to the law of tenancy by the entirety, this Article proposes one possible frame- work for grappling with the overlapping interests implicated in genetic identification and analysis. Tenancy by the entirety, like interests in shared identifiable genetic information, calls for the difficult task of conceptualizing two persons as one. The law of tenancy by the entirety thus provides a useful analytical framework for considering how legal institutions might take interests in shared identifiable genetic infor- mation into account. This Article examines how this framework may shape policy approaches in three domains: forensic identification, genetic research, and personal genetic testing.
    [Show full text]